Comments on: Why online education is mostly a fantasyhttp://pando.com/2013/04/25/why-online-education-is-mostly-a-fantasy/
speaking truth to the new powerTue, 31 Mar 2015 20:25:40 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: wideworldedhttp://pando.com/2013/04/25/why-online-education-is-mostly-a-fantasy/#comment-56350
Tue, 28 May 2013 20:03:37 +0000http://pandodaily.com/?p=82606#comment-56350Effective, well-designed online learning is not a fantasy, don’t be ridiculous, and online learning most certainly can, and will provide one option, in a host of options for the improvement of higher education going forward. The capacity of poorly designed, one-way communication MOOCs that are being promoted as the saviour of education, well that may bear some talking about.
Well-educated advocates of online learning are currently horrified by the idea that MOOCs, as they are being developed by many MOOC providers, and their elite Justice League institutional partners, are going to be held up as a standard of what quality online learning actually is. Many, too many MOOCs that are being developed right now, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, are no more effective in delivering on learning objectives than those amazing slide projector films of “Penguins of the Antarctic” we watched in grade six. Many MOOCs are one-way, albeit high production value, methods of communication that require no real, meaningful input from the learners, and in fact, the sheer numbers of learners being invited in almost completely negates any possibility of meaningful learning. These types of MOOCs are content, just like books, and learning typically requires human interaction and collaboration to accomplish. Collusion even. Many MOOCs are a spectator sport and it is an enormous fantasy to believe that they will destroy higher education as we know it.
The professors, and by that I mean “course teams,” driving these nicely designed one-way communication pieces, often have no capacity, owing to zero experience in online teaching, to interact with more than a handful of the learners that have signed up to receive the wisdom being imparted. In a fit of madness, someone has advised that the unwashed, non-paying masses would benefit from listening in on the privileged, 30 or so elite students taking the course face-to-face with the professor. Really? Why? Do they ask better questions than learners taking the course for free? Tedious, awful, not useful and a major slap in the face for those who cannot actually afford, or are not allowed in to the nice elite institution.
There’s very little that’s cooperative, collaborative, empowering, interactive or retention-supportive about MOOCs as we’re seeing them arise. No wonder learners are trying and dropping them like, well, things that drop easily.
There are generalizations, if you had not guessed. There are some (not sure how many as I cannot actually take them all) really well-designed MOOCs.
Recent studies have shown that there is a significant gap in completion rates between classroom and online courses. Hmmm, why might that be? I don’t doubt the math, but I question the relevance of the finding and the “unmotivated student” scapegoat process being applied. There’s something like an 8% difference in completion, and the fault is being laid at the feet of the “quitting students.” Is it possible that there’s an 8% gap in instructional design understanding at most universities, and among traditional classroom teachers about what needs to be different, and more appropriately designed for student success in online learning? Do you think it might be more than an 8% gap in expertise? I do, based on what I’ve seen so far. I applaud the efforts of any online student getting through courses that are poorly designed with very little understanding of online learning needs and very little online student support of any kind. Do you think there might be a lot of those type of online courses arising at the moment? Here’s a fantasy for you, many institutions require zero mandatory training for their instructors to teach online. They mistakenly believe, “if we’ve taught in the classroom, we can teach online with no training or support. How hard can it be?”
There is a better way to experiment, test and explore the capacity and possibilities of open, online education, to support and empower humans to pursue education, actively, willingly, in a motivated and successful manner. For institutions and dedicated, super great individual educators, that way is to hand over, actually willingly give up, the ownership of content and the power of expertise, as part of a learning experience for them. To partner with open, online education platforms and the learners who value open education, and really, truly get in there to see how online learning can become an effective and useful component of a community education solution. A solution that includes informal, formal, paid and unpaid components depending on the learner’s needs.
What if we did that? What if learners started to appreciate the responsibilities and new roles for them in creating their own motivation? What if we started respecting them for their creativity, capabilities, empowering them to develop content of their own and offering our encouragement and appreciation of their talents? Learners are, after all, quite used to being spoon-fed and regurgitating information. We set them up for that. Are we surprised when some learners balk at self-direction and refuse to try it? How often have they been told in their K-12 and young adult lives not to ask questions, not to think outside the box, not to be themselves? A lot, that’s how many. Respect, support, trust, encouragement, empowerment, those are the attributes of successful open, online education.
In addition to the long-standing and wonderful open education system of libraries, open – truly open, not just somewhat, or currently open – online education has the capacity to connect people in learning communities, many, many people with common interests and motivations, and represents a new way of learning that colleges and universities have barely begun to explore or test. A new way that learners and researchers and experimenters don’t yet truly understand. We have a human tendency to assign attributes and magical powers to things we do not understand. That’s where the whole “sky is falling on higher education” thing gets going. However, quite right, open, online education is not going to solve our education problems, right now, or soon. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth exploring as an amazing new paradigm in human capability. Is there some good reason that brilliant educators would fear that exploration? Not the ones that I know and who want to be part of my new thing.
– Jenni Hayman, Executive Director, WideWorldEd
]]>By: SuperSquidhttp://pando.com/2013/04/25/why-online-education-is-mostly-a-fantasy/#comment-55658
Tue, 21 May 2013 17:07:27 +0000http://pandodaily.com/?p=82606#comment-55658Oh let me count the ways. If Sir Dao’s goal was to write an article meant to inflame true experts in the area then his goal has certainly been met. Last I checked – my local library did not offer unlimited availability to up to date information…but rather the disposed of readings from the elders of the community and I have never run into one that is open 24 hours. Dumb metaphor to say the least.
The assumptions that get me the most is that advocates of online learning are not working to change the shortcomings mentioned and, moreover, that all motivated students have truly had access to appropriately sourced learning. And that is just it. MOOCS (a widely misused term as many online offerings still follow a small classroom model but are called MOOCs – which technically refer to offering that reach thousands of participants. ) – are about LEARNING. There is a difference between solving our ‘education’ problems vs. access to quality opportunities for ‘learning’. Just saying.
]]>By: Someprofessorhttp://pando.com/2013/04/25/why-online-education-is-mostly-a-fantasy/#comment-54368
Mon, 06 May 2013 19:07:00 +0000http://pandodaily.com/?p=82606#comment-54368MOOCs are great. MOOCs suck
Traditional college is great. Traditional college sucks.
The trick is to use MOOCs and colleges in the right ways for the right people. End of story. I hold an MA in Educational Technology that I earned in an online program.
]]>By: Someprofessorhttp://pando.com/2013/04/25/why-online-education-is-mostly-a-fantasy/#comment-54367
Mon, 06 May 2013 19:06:59 +0000http://pandodaily.com/?p=82606#comment-54367MOOCs are great. MOOCs suck
Traditional college is great. Traditional college sucks.
The trick is to use MOOCs and colleges in the right ways for the right people. End of story. I hold an MA in Educational Technology that I earned in an online program.
]]>By: RobbertCarrhttp://pando.com/2013/04/25/why-online-education-is-mostly-a-fantasy/#comment-53900
Wed, 01 May 2013 00:09:34 +0000http://pandodaily.com/?p=82606#comment-53900Dumbest article I have seen this year. Who TF is this numb nuts? The fact that your bio has the word “innovator(s)” is more than ironic, its comic. I won’t even bother addressing the issues ignored by this troll.
]]>By: RobbertCarrhttp://pando.com/2013/04/25/why-online-education-is-mostly-a-fantasy/#comment-53901
Wed, 01 May 2013 00:09:34 +0000http://pandodaily.com/?p=82606#comment-53901Dumbest article I have seen this year. Who TF is this numb nuts? The fact that your bio has the word “innovator(s)” is more than ironic, its comic. I won’t even bother addressing the issues ignored by this troll.
]]>By: ForrestHiggshttp://pando.com/2013/04/25/why-online-education-is-mostly-a-fantasy/#comment-53899
Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:12:51 +0000http://pandodaily.com/?p=82606#comment-53899TimMensch ForrestHiggs DrHeidiMaston “That’s how I define a successful approach: One where there’s no one left illiterate at the bottom.”
So although you know about the concept, you don’t believe that it applies to the Sudbury school model.
“But the data I cited earlier included the fact that Sudbury educations result in 100% “full and meaningful literacy” — which may not be equivalent to the top 15%, but at least none at the bottom end of the scale.”
It is interesting that the “data”, so to speak, suggests complete literacy. In that you are not suggesting that the scales applied to Prussian model schools have been also been applied to your Sudbury model schools it seems to me that we can’t really compare the two models relative performance until such time as several studies actually set out to do that.
]]>By: ForrestHiggshttp://pando.com/2013/04/25/why-online-education-is-mostly-a-fantasy/#comment-53898
Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:12:50 +0000http://pandodaily.com/?p=82606#comment-53898TimMensch ForrestHiggs DrHeidiMaston “That’s how I define a successful approach: One where there’s no one left illiterate at the bottom.”
So although you know about the concept, you don’t believe that it applies to the Sudbury school model.
“But the data I cited earlier included the fact that Sudbury educations result in 100% “full and meaningful literacy” — which may not be equivalent to the top 15%, but at least none at the bottom end of the scale.”
It is interesting that the “data”, so to speak, suggests complete literacy. In that you are not suggesting that the scales applied to Prussian model schools have been also been applied to your Sudbury model schools it seems to me that we can’t really compare the two models relative performance until such time as several studies actually set out to do that.
]]>By: TimMenschhttp://pando.com/2013/04/25/why-online-education-is-mostly-a-fantasy/#comment-53886
Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:02:09 +0000http://pandodaily.com/?p=82606#comment-53886carlosxcl
I think that opening schools up to be places where anyone can learn is an interesting idea. The worry that comes to mind is that people would be concerned about adults who wanted to exploit children. But if that problem could be addressed, yes, the concept that schools are places stocked with mentors is an awesome one.
Children don’t have to be viewed as wholly incapable to acknowledge the fact that it’s not appropriate to leave a 5-year-old home alone for 9+ hours at a time. You mentioned age limitations, so I don’t know that I’m disagreeing with you here. At the same time, yes, I agree fully that TCS is an important part of the structure I’m talking about. It’s what we’re doing in educating our kids.
]]>By: TimMenschhttp://pando.com/2013/04/25/why-online-education-is-mostly-a-fantasy/#comment-53883
Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:54:43 +0000http://pandodaily.com/?p=82606#comment-53883ForrestHiggsTimMenschDrHeidiMaston “Has nobody ever introduced you to the concept of a normal distribution, in this case of literacy?” — We were having such a civil discussion so far. :(
Yes, I know about distributions. I majored in Cognitive Science; I know a lot about distributions. But the data I cited earlier included the fact that Sudbury educations result in 100% “full and meaningful literacy” — which may not be equivalent to the top 15%, but at least none at the bottom end of the scale. That’s how I define a successful approach: One where there’s no one left illiterate at the bottom.
“The problem is that for political reasons, you can’t wish away
the 4-5 million teachers-in-place in K-12 most of whom are not
adaptable to any radically different approach to education regardless of
how much “retraining” the state throws at them.” — I acknowledge the fact that it’s not an easy task to change how schools work. The teachers are not the only problem; there will be parents who believe the old system is the one they had to go through, and so Q.E.D. it’s what’s best for their kids.

But I believe it’s a moral imperative to try to change the system. Change it incrementally at first: In states where there are charter school options, create charter schools using this format. Get parents on board: Show them the results of existing Sudbury schools. Show them that they don’t have to drug their kids to get them to excel; that, in fact, their kids will truly excel if they are allowed to explore in self-determined directions. Show them how articulate, polite, and kind the students are at these open schools; kids who haven’t been disrespected actually end up respecting adults instead of distrusting them, after all.
Over time, if there’s enough demand for the new format, existing schools will start losing student populations to the new schools. A model that can work in that case is to “partly” take over an existing school: Share existing buildings with new charter schools. Then watch as parents see the stark differences between the kids educated in the old and newer ways, and more and more will transition.

No, it’s not something that will be easy. And it won’t happen overnight. But seeing it as a hard problem doesn’t stop me from wanting to try. And I have more faith that teachers not only will be able to be “retrained,” but that they will welcome it when they realize how the new system works. Again, I’m not talking about changing one set of educational dogmas for another, but to get rid of the dogma entirely. For some, you’re right, they won’t want to let go. But I’ve known too many teachers who can see clearly that what they’re doing isn’t working, and who would welcome a more open structure. And what I want to do is to create the software infrastructure to make it easy for teachers to become good guides; they won’t have to learn to do as much as they’ll have to learn to stand back and let the kids learn.